Colleagues, In revisiting https://github.com/ietf-wg-dmarc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/issues/133 there seems to be some disagreement about the values for the 'fo' tag, specifically the definitions of the 'd' and 's' values for this tag.
DMARCbis rev -31's text has a slightly different description of the 'fo' tag than does RFC 7489, but the four values shown for 'fo' have identical text across the two documents. Questions: In describing the 'fo' tag, RFC 7489 includes this sentence: "The value of this tag is a colon-separated list of characters that indicate failure reporting options as follows:" Meanwhile, DMARCbis currently says: "The value of this tag is either "0", "1", or a colon-separated list of the options represented by alphabetic characters." So RFC 7489 allows for something like "fo=0:d:s" while DMARCbis allows only "fo=0", "fo=1", OR "fo=d", "fo=s", or "fo=d:s" What is the consensus of the group here? Second question... Both RFC 7489 and DMARCbis describe the 'd' and 's' values as requesting the generation of a DKIM failure report (RFC 6651) or SPF failure report (RFC 6652). Is that what we want, or should it be a report in the format defined in draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting? Thanks. -- Todd Herr | Technical Director, Standards & Ecosystem Email: [email protected] Phone: 703-220-4153 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
